The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1887-04-28
Temper ance Question in Politics.

terest to the general reader, and instruc
tive to those who desire to keep posted a
to the progress of the temperance ques
ton and its bearing upon and infuenc
With the two great political PAL ties. TIL
Sun is Democratic, and where the articl
conveys party bias, it should b. remem
bered that it is from Dem ocralic paper
| 1t is as follows
The present prohibition party dates from
| about 1870. In that year temperance tick
cts, as they were then usually called, wer,
run in several States, and, so far as now
known, were supported by 10 900 voters. II
1872 the number Of those who, in the midst
ofthe excitement Of apresidentiaI election
were willing to vote for candidates who
were not seriously In the running fell te
5,6OS. In 1874. a period of great dissatis-
faction with the then ruling party-a con
dition of the public mind always favora-
bic to third party tickets-the prohibition
vote was upwards Of $4,000. The eager
competition between the Democratic ard
Republican presidential candidates in the
hard fought canvass of 1876 resulted in
the reduction of the vote of Green Clay
Smith, the prohibition candidate for Pres
ident to $500. In 1878 the enemies of
rum recovered part of the ground they
had lost two years before, but were not
able to muster as many votes as they had
rallied to their standard in 1874, polling
but % 900, In 1880 Neal Dow's vote was
l0,305, or less than half that given for the
prohibition State ticket in 1878. 1t issub-
sequent to 1880 that the prohibition party
entered upon the second stage of its exist
ence. Since that time its growth has been
so rapid and its history so different from
that of the previous decade that the pres
emit party. as we now Lave it, playing an
important port in the political world, may
practically be said to have been formed
between 1880 and 1882, in which latter year
it polled 80, 1903 votes. In the light of the
past history of the old prohibition party
large falling off strength was to be expected
in 1884. As is known to every one the vote
largely increased. There is, of course, no
question that the peculiar conditions of
that canvass, were specially favorable to
the pTohibitionlsts. There were a great
many Republicans who did not feel that
they could in good conscience vote for Mr..
Blaine, but who at the same time were un-
willing to vote the Democratic presiden-
tial ticket. To this considerable class of
voforc in tho Nortborp ond hordor Ctotoa
the st. John and Daniel ticket was veri-
table city of refuge. Independently of
this cause for an increased prohibition
vote, and we by no means wish to under
estimate its influence, it is probable, in
deed. almost as certain as anything in pol
itics can be. that the prohibition party
would have been able at least to have
maintained its strength of 1882. The pub
lie conscience, excited by the evils which
flow from the undue indulgence in the use
of intoxicating drinks, was becoming more
and more sensitive. The campaigns in
favor Of prohibitory constitutional amend
meets in several of the States had kept the
matter we'll before the public attention.
and the very evident unwlllingness of the
politicians of the other parties to deal eff
fectively with the question, whether by
prohibition or regulation and restriction
had convinced many people that neither of
The parties would do anothing for the is
sue which they deemed of paramount i'm
oortance. The combined influence of all |
,hese causes manifested itself in a total |
vote of ISL 800 for st. John aud Daniel.-I
The party held the balance of power in at |
east four States, viz Connecticut, New
7 ork, New Jersey and Michigan. Had
here been no prohibition ticket in the
ield it is probable that Mr.. Blaine would
lave received the electoral votes of all the
States named. AS it was, Michigan alone
gave small plurality for the Republican
ticket. What Birney was to Clay in 1874.
orty years later st. John was to Blaine.
The bitter antagonism which was excite
lgainst the third party in the breasts of
he Republicans seemed to make it prob
lble that for time at least the prohibit
ion party would be unable to gain many
lew recruits, while it would lose those
persons who had emphasized their dislike
# the Democratic party ant. the Republic
an candidate by voting with it without
,ecoming part of it On the contrary,
However, the prohibition vote in 1885 was
6S, 73S, almost double that of 1884. In no
ess than eleven states-yiz., California,
1onnecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, New
hampshire, Indiana, New Jersey, New
FORK, Ohio, Oregon and West Virginia.
he prohibition vote was greater than the
lurality of the successful ticket. These
tates have in the aggregat e 1919 electoral
otes. 1t is not easy to say what the prob
BILE size of the prohibition vote in 1883
7ilI be. A good deal depends upon the
latforms OF the two great parties and still
lore upon their nominees. If either of
hese are unsatisfactory to those classes of
oters who are prohibitionits or vino SYM
athize with their motives, if not with
neir methods, the third party will doubt
,ss grow. It must be borne in mind that
ne present prohibition party has never as
ct polled more than small percentage of
hat may be fairly called the prohibition
ote. AS tested by the result of the votes
n the constitutional amendments in va
ous States and by the vote cast in local
ption contests, there must be from thirty
} forty per cent. of the people of the
)untry who are willing to have the liquor
'affic declared illegal. That is. the third
arty prohibitionists have about four mil
Ons Of voters TO recruit from, and it is
le common impression that any consid-
Fable increase in the prohibition vote will
urt the Republican party most. There is
strong prohibition feeling in the far
'outh. In some States the germ of pho
ibition party exists, bnt in these States.
he Democratic majority is SO great Il at
hatever vote the prohibition party may
oil will have no effect on the presidential
lection. In the border States, such as Ma.
Wand and West Virginia, there are proba-
y as many Republicans as Democrats in t
lie prohibition party. In the North there I
as been noquestion that in the past at i
asst three fourths of the prohibition vote
as been drawn from the Republicans
With reasonable prudence on the part of a
~ nox,,oor,%o +l,;o .r:1 l.. a. | s